Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Victoria earthquakes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

2009 Victoria earthquakes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT. The earthquakes caused no casualties and very minor damage. I could not find any Google News results after 1 April 2009, suggesting that the earthquakes have no long-term significance. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost no damage, very weak events and no scientific papers written. Entirely fails to meet the suggested guidelines for notability for earthquake articles. Mikenorton (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:EFFECT. Almost all the coverage stops after 2009. Curious as to why opening statement is "This article..." LibStar (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Mikenorton Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems absurd to me to delete an article about earthquakes in one part of the Pacific Ring of Fire when one of the biggest earthquakes ever has happened just two years later in another part of it. It tends to disprove the idea that seismic quiescence (New Scientist Oct 1, 1987) can be a predictor of earthquakes, for one, and in my opinion, the two events are related. Anarchangel (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are roughly 500,000 earthquakes every year, many of them within the Pacific Ring. Your argument says we should have an article on each one. Clearly, there needs to be some kind of criteria for inclusion here. In general, we have tended to look for coverage/discussion in reliable sources occurring well after the fact. Note, for example, that 1906 San Francisco earthquake has sources from 2010, over 100 years after the event. The one presently under discussion seems not to merit coverage a mere 2 years later. Your theory that it tends to disprove a notable theory is moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is not inherited, and even less so when the two topics are not very related (or at least not reliably known to be so). As SummerPhD pointed out, there are 500,000 earthquakes every year, so it's like saying "John Sutter is from Sacramento (approx. 500,000 pop.), and I am from Sacramento, therefore I am notable." Even if a link were found, i.e. I am John Sutter's great-great-great-grandson, this still fails NOTINHERITED. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.